Recommended Posts

I think the problem with bombs is well solved. Everyone with their advantages.

P2 has just 500kg bombs but on the other hand climbs much faster, is well defended and is more versatile.

On the other hand He 111 is much slower, clims slow as hell and on the air is a sittind duck for any fighter so the only advantage it has, is that it can carry bigger bombs.

A P2 squad can make double or triple the sorties than a german squad of bombers with a better chance to survive. Depots and arfields had the targets very sprayed so anyways you have to aim and to use almost one bomb per target so big bombs are not as overpowered as with the first TAW edition where you could go to a depot and get 40 ground targets.

I think that these planes are actually under-served by the architecture of the multiplayer program itself.

Just a fantasy of mine:

1. Server capacity being effectively tripled or quadrupled.

2. He-111s having good reason to fly round-trips end-to-end of the maps.

3. Many more static objectives such as defense positions all along the front line - not just at key points/turn phases and multiple factories/depots for each team.

4. Attack/defense objectives dynamically generating within the mission instead of between mission timeouts giving planes like Pe-2 reason to loiter over patrol points until one comes up.

Imagine, for example, patrolling the seas of the Kuban map and finding nothing, then receiving a radio message that an enemy shipping convoy, battle group or submarine has been discovered and to check the map for an approximate location. Pe-2s and Ju-88s among other plane types would have a whole new dynamic to work with. Of course there would be developing objectives on ground as well for fighters, attackers and bombers to react to.

I also think that if points 1, 2 and 3 at least came into being, then loadout limitations could become a moot point as well, and ALL could be unlocked.

But like I said, it's just my personal dream of what I'd like to see.

37 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

...with the fighters VVS has up to map 6/7 we can not kill more than 2 LW bombers if we are lucky, sometimes expending all ammo on a single LW bomber. On the other hand...you can kill 5 Peshkas with a single FW. Yes, FIVE....

I was thinking about this earlier. We don't have the 111-H2 but it took a 3-5 second dead-close burst from 6x or 8x .303 coming out of Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain to take one down. By comparison most VVS planes are set up in such a way that it seems they were intended for skill snap shots into fighter cockpits and radiators. Yes, even with cannon configurations.

Meanwhile, the 190 was well armed and well stocked with ammo, could potentially de-wing B-17s with a 1 second snap shot, and provided there was no taken damage, rinse and repeat until the fuel gauge said "RTB".

So, yes, with the increase in LW fighter capabilities does make the Pe-2 less scary and VVS is hard-pressed to have adequately armed fighters until later in the war. That said, there is really nothing unrealistic about 190s having the ability to rain a metric f==k-ton of lead onto many targets and have ammo to spare.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah, the paratrooper thing is a bit too much. It is the only "ground attack" target not covered by AAA, by the way. So fighters escorting 52s are not under the risk of being hit by AAA and don' t have to assist with taking them down.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

People get shot down, quit. The winning team ends up dealing less damage because the opponent gave up.﻿

For the Luftwaffe registered 1.3 times more people than the red army air force.

In Prime-time for Luftwaffe flies in average in 1.5-2 times more people.

Loss - a consequence of including the numerical superiority.

You can't allocate people to cover the rear of the warehouse and other important goals because they simply do not, and not because their "hit as jammer in group with my team.".....

Your proposed logic will be relevant even when the ratio of the forces of 2,100 to 1.

I'm interested..personally, you will fly with such a balance of power is not in your favor....?

If the penalty for losses and bonuses for the destruction of the enemy depend on the balance of power - then you can fly alone and in the minority against a large number of opponents. Now this is not so your logic is not correct.

21 minutes ago, xJammer said:

I actually like the idea of making the dropzones be protected by one of those AAA outposts. Cool!

Honestly right now the tank column AAA is joke in comparison to the strength of IL2 I found this on the russian TAW discussion forum﻿﻿

So it is not surprising how much of a reverse red side is able to pull off during the night.

What confuses you in this video...? The fact that Il-2 can withstand a few hits of 20mm anti-aircraft guns from long range....? The fact that two aircraft in the state in a coordinated manner to attack a tank column alternately diverting anti-aircraft artillerie...? By the way you do not mind the possibility of three planes to destroy all anti-aircraft artillery at the airport, but unfortunately their videos on this occasion you do not spread.....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What confuses you in this video...? The fact that Il-2 can withstand a few hits of 20mm anti-aircraft guns from long range....? The fact that two aircraft in the state in a coordinated manner to attack a tank column alternately diverting anti-aircraft artillerie...? By the way you do not mind the possibility of three planes to destroy all anti-aircraft artillery at the airport, but unfortunately their videos on this occasion you do not spread.....

Nothing is confusing. It is just that "balance" wise IL2 tanking head-on multiple AAA guns on a tank column, while blue side has nothing that is comparably tanky that still can frontally take out the AAA trucks by itself.

There is a difference between taking out AAA at airfields with losses from even just a single hit of AA and an IL2 carelessly tanking the said AA

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ok, here is some quick and dirty stats. So far LW captured cities 25 times by tanks, airfields 16 times by paratroopers, and damaged airfields by paratroopers 49 times. Below is the list of events. What do you guys think?

Hide contents

-snip-

VVS has no realistic way to respond to this which is pretty much handing an extra 30% airfield capture rate to Blue. They can fly the sorties during missions when blue is stacked as it is now and be under no threat.

It would make sense to allow the paratroopers to capture airfields when there is 24/7 danger to them but this is simply not the case.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nothing is confusing. It is just that "balance" wise IL2 tanking head-on multiple AAA guns on a tank column, while blue side has nothing that is comparably tanky that still can frontally take out the AAA trucks by itself.

There is a difference between taking out AAA at airfields with losses from even just a single hit of AA and an IL2 carelessly tanking the said AA﻿

That's not balance. This is a historically accurate thing. The columns are 20-25mm anti-aircraft guns, which are equally successful shoot down fighters and bombers. Il-2 due to the armored corps and "magic damage model version 3.008" - out of competition...not YET anyway. When attacking airfields, the cover of which has anti-aircraft guns calibre 37mm no longer any difference between a fighter, a bomber or an armored Il-2, since all three can easily go astray anti-aircraft guns of this caliber.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

By the next Taw, the Allies will hopefully have the Li-2/DC-3 and have similar capabilities.

I think one way to limit the effectiveness of paratroopers would be, to put AAA in the dropzones. This AAA should not only be dangerous for the aircraft, but also for paratroopers.

The more AAA, less paratroopers survive. This would also encourage ground attack planes to clear the dropzones first and bring a nice new mechanic.

Why do those paratroopers exist in the first place? To compensate for 40% extra field capture rate there should be either:

1) Paratroopers for both sides
2) No paratroopers for anybody

3) Paratroopers for LW and some asymmetrical red-only target. For example, Hitler visiting the front lines. If VVS destroy the dugout with Hitler, the whole campaign is won, the war is over.

Another problem with blue-only paratroopers is that it is a massively important target which distract pilots from other fronts. Also paradrop zones are not shown on map and in VVS briefings. I guess for obvious reasons.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Another problem with blue-only paratroopers is that it is a massively important target which distract pilots from other fronts. Also paradrop zones are not shown on map and in VVS briefings. I guess for obvious reasons.

Its fairly regular for red players as far as I noticed to first join blue side to check on the para locations and then switch back to red. I don't think it makes much of a difference if they are hidden. (I have never tested whether this tactic is actually possible, maybe there is a long timeout so only one red "sacrifices" himself to tell the rest of the team where the drops are).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Its fairly regular for red players as far as I noticed to first join blue side to check on the para locations and then switch back to red. I don't think it makes much of a difference if they are hidden. (I have never tested whether this tactic is actually possible, maybe there is a long timeout so only one red "sacrifices" himself to tell the rest of the team where the drops are).

The problem with switching sides is that new players are not aware of the paradrops going on. While if the paradrop zone was shown on the map it would be obvious that something fishy may happen there. You also cannot switch sides to check the zones while in flight.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Its fairly regular for red players as far as I noticed to first join blue side to check on the para locations and then switch back to red. I don't think it makes much of a difference if they are hidden. (I have never tested whether this tactic is actually possible, maybe there is a long timeout so only one red "sacrifices" himself to tell the rest of the team where the drops are).﻿

Reasons why you are against giving this opportunity to both parties....?

You will also be able to" spy " and wait at the point of landing of enemy transport aircraft....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So probably para drop zones are not shown on the map with the hope of VVS pilots being distracted by the other targets, while they silently lose airfields by stealth infantry paradrops. Which seems to actually happen.

Another thing is that those damn troopers damage airfields, which happened 49 times. To damage a front-line airfield with bombs you have to face AAA and fighters hanging around. While with paratroopers you just have to sneak in at the right moment.

Share on other sites

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

30 minutes ago, mincer said:

Another problem with blue-only paratroopers is that it is a massively important target which distract pilots from other fronts.

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Reasons why you are against giving this opportunity to both parties....?

You will also be able to" spy " and wait at the point of landing of enemy transport aircraft....

Did I ever say that I was against giving paradrop aircraft to reds side?

Just now, ECV56_Chimango said:

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

Honestly though the current score is 3:2. You make it sound like as if it is 5:0

P.S. I really have nothing against giving red side a fast-track win route next mission. They sure need some motivation.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

Oh, i see. It is my first TAW, so I don't know the history. Thanks.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Any paratrooper operation should be supported by a ground offensive (Tank Column) in my opinion. Paratroopers would likely be on a suicide mission if no advancing ground units were on there way to relieve/resupply them. There should also be a max number of paratroopers kind of like the max number of tanks as they are not an limitless asset due to being highly trained elite units. They would only be lost if killed during the drop, in a plane crash, or if the operation isn't successful in capturing an airfield. Also would like to see the implementation of commando operations where a deep behind the lines drop zone would stop the flow of supplies or damage assets. Both sides would have the ability to do commando operations with the arrival of the PO-2.

Share on other sites

I am all for balancing the whole planeset like it is, but starting to give out aircraft from the other side would be kind of ridiculous.

There are enough advantages for both sides right now and i think, the server admins managed a very good balance in maps 1-4 (and they all had Ju-52 and paratroopers).

So this is not the reason for any imbalance. In map 5 there was a bigger imbalance in numbers then in maps 1-4, that's the main reason the Reds got steamrolled.

Might be the right thing to investigate why that happened. Maybe because lone-bombing got a lot more dangerous for the Reds lately. Maybe another reason.

2 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

Just some brief thoughts on Paratroopers:

Any paratrooper operation should be supported by a ground offensive (Tank Column) in my opinion. Paratroopers would likely be on a suicide mission if no advancing ground units were on there way to relieve/resupply them. There should also be a max number of paratroopers kind of like the max number of tanks as they are not an limitless asset due to being highly trained elite units. They would only be lost if killed during the drop, in a plane crash, or if the operation isn't successful in capturing an airfield. Also would like to see the implementation of commando operations where a deep behind the lines drop zone would stop the flow of supplies or damage assets. Both sides would have the ability to do commando operations with the arrival of the PO-2.

Share on other sites

I remember when this happened for a campaign. Klaus Mann and his friends tricked me into something like four TKs with their Soviet Ju-52 "peace flights" back before they had their will broken and stopped flying(as much) .

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Might help to give some context that VVS only has 1 airfield left which always turns out like this because the losing side can't really do much and won't start from that single airfield.

Nobody is doubting the numerical superiority of LW. It was ALWAYS an issue and everybody knows that - hence why there are so many proposed changes. You aren't telling anyone something new by keep posting about this.

2 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

Lets not pretend like balance changes weren't needed back then. I imagine it is very difficult to balance the campaign because of the many possibilities how to play it. For example a lot would change if everyone would be coordinated by some sort of commander. Neither side is playing to their maximum strength and it varies each campaign, depending a lot on the squadrons flying and how active they are.

I still think that there is a definite meta in the current balance that needs adjustments but blaming everything on it is wrong. It's obviously not impossible for the VVS to win as the past has shown.

Some people should remember that we are ALL playing the same campaign and that the majority wants it to be balanced. It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lets not pretend like balance changes weren't needed back then. I imagine it is very difficult to balance the campaign because of the many possibilities how to play it. For example a lot would change if everyone would be coordinated by some sort of commander. Neither side is playing to their maximum strength and it varies each campaign, depending a lot on the squadrons flying and how active they are.

I still think that there is a definite meta in the current balance that needs adjustments but blaming everything on it is wrong. It's obviously not impossible for the VVS to win as the past has shown.

I think it's especially hard to balance the campaign when ~90% of one side are surgically grafted into fighters and you have to tailor victory conditions for them. This effect is especially evident in the impact of the 190 coming onto the field. The 190 is the perfect machine for TAW.

2 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.

I understand the desire to find moral symmetry in the problems here, but let's be honest about the facts on the ground. Soviet-only pilots are NOT an issue here. The balance issue is two-fold: Generally excessive Luftwaffe-only pilot population and nationalities who largely fly one side dominating certain timezone brackets(which has been an issue with the VVS side this campaign as well) .

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Might help to give some context that VVS only has 1 airfield left which always turns out like this because the losing side can't really do much and won't start from that single airfield.

We tried. I spawned in looked left and saw my wingman slumped over his stick. I looked high 3'oclock and saw a 110 diving on me for a gun run.. Ditched out of the server with an alt F4. My other wingman spawned in just as I bailed on server. The 110 killed him before he fully spawned in.

Was funny. Sucked a little as I wanted to try and fight those odds but we where unable to spawn and go engine start.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am all for balancing the whole planeset like it is, but starting to give out aircraft from the other side would be kind of ridiculous.

There are enough advantages for both sides right now and i think, the server admins managed a very good balance in maps 1-4 (and they all had Ju-52 and paratroopers).

So this is not the reason for any imbalance. In map 5 there was a bigger imbalance in numbers then in maps 1-4, that's the main reason the Reds got steamrolled.

Might be the right thing to investigate why that happened. Maybe because lone-bombing got a lot more dangerous for the Reds lately. Maybe another reason.

This sounds like a nice approach. I'd be all for it.

It's not funny.

It is ridiculous to deprive one of the parties of a historically reliable type of aircraft, in this case, the transport thereby violating the balance, which becomes much worse with the numerical superiority in favor of the Luftwaffe.

The task of the Ju-52 - delivery of cargoes and the landing of troops, not melee strikes or bombing logistics warehouses and factories.

There is no fundamental difference between Li-2 and Ju-52 neither in speed nor in the functions performed.

Especially in the Soviet Union used a number of purchased and captured aircraft of this type......:

The other types of aircraft are simply available and it would be really funny to issue the Bf-109 to the side of the red army air force or the Yak-1 to the Luftwaffe side.

4 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Some people should remember that we are ALL playing the same campaign and that the majority wants it to be balanced. It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.﻿﻿

The last three campaigns I flew for the Luftwaffe so I have a fairly complete picture of what I'm talking about. Accordingly, the claims in a one-sided view of the balance problem personally in my address are not correct. However Chimanov absolutely right - the problem of the lack of air force capabilities of air aviation in the conditions of the numerical superiority of the Luftwaffe becomes too obvious.